September 17, 2014, 07:51:05 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jaayres20

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.  If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste.  You can't use information you don't need.  If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.   

I think JPEG is great and time saving. I don't think it should be used for critical client work such as weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc...

I never shoot JPEG, but I have to say that I'm considering more and more because it does save time. Even if that time doesn't add up to much in one day, it does over the span of years..

One of the top celebrity wedding photographers in the world Mike Colon shoots JPEG and he charges over $20,000 per wedding and I am sure his work would be classified as "critical client work".  I am a wedding photographer and when I started out I only shot RAW but as I got better I started to shoot part of the wedding in JPEG and now I shoot only in JPEG and have never looked back.  I have post processed hundreds of thousands RAW and JPEG files and I really don't see a benefit of shooting RAW unless you mis the exposure or WB big time.  If you take the time to figure out how to use the camera to it's fullest potential then you can make a great looking JPEG.  That includes not only nailing the exposure but really getting the correct WB.  I use Kelvin and I also adjust the WB shift for each setting I am in to properly correct color casts.  For example when I have a bride and groom in a park under the shade of green trees I bring in magenta to the image to balance the green cast the trees will leave.  I even take it a step further and adjust the picture style to get more or less contrast or correct the tone of color.  Doing those things you can make your JPEG look as good as a converted RAW file.  It takes a little time to get used to but I can make those adjustments in seconds now and it has also made me a better photographer because I see and read light better.  I am not saying that there is no reason for RAW and if you were going to be doing a lot of heavy editing or creative dodging and burning then RAW is going to help but for.  RAW may capture all of the data possible but if you don't need that data then it is a waste.  Just my opinion.     

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: May 16, 2012, 08:23:21 PM »
I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus?  Or was that the 85mm?

That's the 85L.  The 50L is quite fast.
The 1.2 does not have a fast AF. The 1.4 focuses a lot faster and is actually sharper once you get past 1.8. Now the 1.2 has a lot better picture quality and better bokeh.

Technical Support / Lexar 64GB & 32GB SD cards
« on: May 10, 2012, 02:16:13 PM »
When I got 2 5D3s I bought Sandisk 64GB & 32GB cards and I also bought a Lexar Professional 64GB & 32GB cards.  I have noticed that when I put the Sandisks into my laptop the show up instantly on the desktop.  When I put the Lexar cards in the SD slot on my laptop they often don't show up the first time or take a minute or two.  Anyone else experience this?  I am just a little concerned there is something not right about them.  They seem to be fine in the camera.  Maybe I am overreacting.   

Canon General / Re: I have a question about wedding photography
« on: May 10, 2012, 12:01:40 PM »
Do you have a contract?  It is not a good practice to give out RAW images or unedited images?  Some might say your pictures are over edited but is that your style and the style the clients saw when they booked you?  The pictures you posted looked consistant which is important no matter the style.  I have shot almost 50 weddings and I have had a few people ask for the RAW files before they booked me but after I explained to them that my images are my brand and that I go to a lot of truble to make every image that comes form me consistant they understand and don't mention it again.  It would be like going into a restaurant and asking to go back into the kitchen to make your own meal.  I think you need to ask them very specifically what they don't like about the pictures because there are some people who are just a little controlling and are used to controlling everything.  It may not have mattered if you were Jose Villa they still might might of made the same request.  They may just not know that is something like that isn't typically done.  If they keep insisting you might try to offer further edites on a limited number of images.  No more than 25-50 but say that it would be very time consuming to go back through and re-edit all of the images and that if you did that for everyone you would have been out of business a long time ago.  Good luck and BTW I like the pictures you posted and think you have a lot going for you so don't let something like this set you back.  Just be very specific in the future so the client knows your expectations and you know their expectations.         

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Rate button
« on: May 06, 2012, 04:53:22 PM »
I love the rate button. I use it at weddings to pick out my favorites throuought the day and then use the copy image feature to copy only my rated pictures to a new folder on the second card. I then copy those to my laptop and run a same day slideshow at the reception. I lay out a few buidness cards and everyone gathers around to see the pictures from the day. It books me weddings and makes me money. Doing the same thing before the rate button used to take me over an hour now it takes me ten minutes. Great feature.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« on: May 05, 2012, 12:54:39 AM »
Well thanks to everyone for all of the input.  I guess since I really don't do a lot of post processing anyways then I am not missing out on much.  When you deliver 1000+ images per wedding then you try to limit the amount of time you are editing in lightroom.  The 5D3 may not be the best when it comes to DR but I have sure been very happy with the AF and low light performance.  The colors seem to better than the 5D2 as well.  Just more natural I guess.  Again I have never used a Nikon so maybe I don't know what I am missing there as well.         

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D3 Dynamic Range
« on: May 04, 2012, 04:53:01 PM »
I have a quick question about the dynamic range of the 5D3 which from what I have been reading is behind the D800.  I have never owned a nikon and currently own two 5D3s.  I understand what dynamic range is and how it is important for retaining details in the highlights and shadows of an image.  I guess I would like to know from one who has seen the differences in the two cameras is what am I missing out on?  How does a really high DR (better than the 5D3) help unless I am mostly shooting in high contrast lighting situations or am trying to push or pull and image by more than a couple of stops.  I have always been really happy with the DR of my 5D2 and now my 5D3 and being a wedding photographer I shoot in about every lighting condition possible.  I always shoot JPEG with highlight tone priority enabled and do my best to get the exposure and WB spot on.  I also shoot in Faithful picture mode with the contrast turned down one notch.  I end up with pretty flat images out of the camera with plenty of details in the highlights and shadows.  Unless I really mis the exposure I have never been unhappy with the DR.  I almost always end up adding contrast to the picture because there is too much DR and the image looks too flat.  I probably won't own a Nikon so I am just curious from those who have seen the difference hands on how big of a difference is it and in what situations will it really be beneficial.  It seems like low ISO high DR performance has become more important than high ISO low noise performance.  I am not trying to start another debate over the two cameras I just want to know how much better it is and how much of a difference it would really make.   

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: April 30, 2012, 04:10:54 PM »
In terms of "softness" I had a Mark II for almost three years and now I have two Mark IIIs.  The Mark III is very sharp.  It is sharper than the Mark II and the IQ in terms of color and ISO are superior.  I can't imagine the the 1Dx having a "softness" issue if the Mark IIIs images are extremely sharp.   

Yeah? Could you post a couple of raw's, say of a barcode and small text, I can compare to mine with? because mine is def softer than my 5d2. Serioulsy different.

that would really help. at full resolution please, a RAW file would be perfect if possible

Yes I can.  If you don't mind can you give me a day or so to get to it.  Here is an image I took at a wedding with my 50mm 1.2 @ 1.2.  The 50mm 1.2 is NOT a sharp lens @ 1.2 and with the 5D2 I could never have gotten anything like this.  Let alone in focus.  I know barcodes and RAW images are important but I can make money off of this image and the 5D3 allows me to do it better than the 5D2.  I am just saying that when it comes to a real world test the 5D3 gives me excellent results time and time again.  In my opinion the 5D3 was made for us wedding photographers and event photographers that need excellent IQ & fast accurate autofocus in difficult fast moving environments.  If I was a landscape photographer or a studio photographer I would buy a different camera.  The focus was on the groom's face.  Perfectly sharp for 1.2 and the best part is that it is in focus which is a lot more than the 5D2 could offer me.

Lenses / Re: Advice on Telephoto Lens
« on: April 30, 2012, 12:58:56 PM »
Not to go against the grain, but I'm thinking that 200mm is already on the long side for wedding photography. If you need more than that, you're too far away from the action. As the wedding photographer, it's your job to be in the right place at the right time, and that right place isn't going to put you farther away than you can comfortably cover with a 135.

I could maybe see an exception for some super-compressed fashion-type staged portraits...which puts you right back to a supertelephoto, if that's the look you're going for.



I would agree, however, there are a lot of big long Catholic churches with very strick rules and a few times a year I find myself stuck at the back of a church with NO option of moving or getting closer.  That is maybe 1 out of 15 or 20 weddings but it does happen enough times that I need the extra zoom to get some of the closer shots I want, and am used to in those situations.   

Lenses / Advice on Telephoto Lens
« on: April 30, 2012, 10:47:54 AM »
I am a wedding photographer and currently my longest lens is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  I used to have a 5D2 and a 7D and during the ceremony I would put the 70-200 on the 7D which gave me about 320mm.  I really never found myself needing much more reach than that.  I recently sold both my cameras and bought two 5D3s.  I love them but I have a feeling there will be several times this wedding season that I will be wishing I had the additional reach.  The big problem I have found as that most telephoto lenses are very expensive being that I won't need it 95% of the time.  I would love to have the new version of the 100-400 but who knows when that is going to come out and what it will cost.  I was thinking about the 300mm f/4L and maybe getting the 1.4 extender just in case I need the extra reach.  Any thoughts on a reasonably prices telephoto with IS that will get me the reach I need?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d3 not soft anymore?
« on: April 29, 2012, 05:05:34 PM »
I had a 5D2 for over 3 years and now I own two 5D3s and I find the 5D3s to be very sharp.  When I use my 50mm 1.2 at f/2 it is too sharp for close portraits.  I always find myself taking the clarity down a little in LR to make them softer.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the same.  My two cameras were in the first or second round of shipping.  I got them in the end of March and early April.  I have never sat down and done an official test but after several photo shoots and 4000+ pictures at a wedding I am very satisfied.  And the best part is having so many of them in focus!   

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: April 29, 2012, 08:25:53 AM »
In terms of "softness" I had a Mark II for almost three years and now I have two Mark IIIs.  The Mark III is very sharp.  It is sharper than the Mark II and the IQ in terms of color and ISO are superior.  I can't imagine the the 1Dx having a "softness" issue if the Mark IIIs images are extremely sharp.   

EOS Bodies / Re: Shoot JPEG again with 5D3
« on: April 25, 2012, 10:09:56 PM »

But why get yourself a 5D3 to shoot JPEG? There must have been a bazillion words written in the RAW vs JPEG debate and the pro-RAW conclusions remain totally valid.

Frankly it freaks me out to shoot JPEG on any camera other than my phone...the potential for post-pro grief makes it a non-starter. If you know for 100% certain your output requirements are modest, check out mRAW.

I bought 2 5D3s to shoot JPEG only.  I have shot RAW exclusively for years and edited probably over 100,000 RAW and JPEG images.  RAW is really only a benefit to me when I miss the exposure or WB.  Sure RAW captures a lot more information but if you don't need that information then it is a waste.  I shoot 20-30 weddings a year and probably shoot 3000-5000 pictures per wedding and a good JPEG is just as good as a RAW image unless your settings are off or you plan on doing extensive dodging or burning.  If you shoot manual and dial in the WB using the Kelvin color temperature and the WB shift to properly balance the color of the light source your JPEG is going to be as good if not better than if it were taken in RAW.         

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D3 HRD pretty nice
« on: April 25, 2012, 07:56:45 PM »
Very nice photo.  What lens and settings?

I just used my 50mm 1.2.  I think I was at ISO 800 and f/6.3.  Thanks for the complement. 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7